1995-12-19 Regular CC Minutes3.8
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA CITY COUNCIL
DECEMBER 19, 1995
The meeting convened at 7:39 p.m., with Mayor Appezzato presiding.
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilmember DeWitt. Reverend
Mark Bollwinkel, Twin Tower United Methodist Church, gave the
'invocation.
ROLL CALL - PRESENT:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers Arnerich, DeWitt, Lucas,
Vice Mayor Mannix and President Appezzato
- 5.
None.
PROCLAMATIONS AND SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY,
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
President Appezzato stated that the following items were pulled for
public discussion: 4-B (95-755) Report from Assistant City Manager
transmitting an annual status report on property exchange agreement
between the City and School District related to the Mastick Senior
Center property; 4-F (95-756) Report from Public Works Director
recommending Authorization to Award 5-Year Contract for Attendant
Lot Operations in Municipal Lots A & C; 4-H (95-757) Resolution
"Approving Parcel Map No. 6629 (1234-1238 College Avenue and 2828
Encinal Avenue) and Granting an Exception from Section 30-84.7 of
the Municipal Code Requiring Undergrounding of Utilities."; 4-1
(95-758) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal
Code by Repealing Section 2-63 (Lost, Stolen, and Unclaimed
Property) of Article V (Administrative Procedures and Policies) of
Chapter II (Administration) in its Entirety and Replacing with
Revised Section 2-63 (Lost, Stolen and Unclaimed Property), of
Article V (Administrative Procedures and Policies) of Chapter II
(Administration); 4-K (95-759) Introduction of Ordinance Amending
the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Subsections 5-24.2, 5-24.3,
5-24.4, 5-24.8d, 5-24.16 and 5-24.21 of Section 5-24 (Bingo Games
for Charity) of Chapter V, (Licenses and Permits), Thereof,
Regulating Bingo Games for Charity; and 4-L (95-760) Bills for
ratification.
Councilman Arnerich moved approval of the remainder of the Consent
Calendar. Vice Mayor Mannix seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Regular Meeting, Alameda City Council
December 19, 1995
3q9
Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk.
(*95-749) Minutes of the Special and Regular Council Meetings
of November 21, 1995; and the Regular Council Meeting of December
5, 1995. Approved.
See Paragraph (95-755).
(*95-750) Report from Community Development Director regarding
Annual Report of the Community Improvement Commission. Accepted.
(*95-751) Report from Community Development Director regarding
Annual Review of Affordable Housing Ordinance. Accepted.
(*95-752) Report from Finance Director transmitting Investment
Portfolio for Period Ending November 30, 1995. Accepted.
See Paragraph (95-756).
(*95-753) Resolution No. 12720 "Adopting a Drug and Alcohol
Testing Policy Pursuant to the U.S. Department of Transportation
Regulations." Adopted.
See Paragraph (95-757).
See Paragraph (95-758).
(*95-754) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda
Municipal Code by Adding Section 23-7 (Prohibition of Camping in
City Parks) to Chapter XXIII (Parks, Recreation Areas and Public
Property). (Vice Mayor Mannix) Introduced.
See Paragraph (95-759).
See Paragraph (95-760).
(95-755) Report from Assistant City Manager transmitting an
annual status report on property exchange agreement between the
City and School District related to the Mastick Senior Center
property. Accepted.
Bill McCall, Alameda, requested that an overview of the report be
provided.
The Acting City Manager gave an overview of the status report; and
stated that the Agreement between the City and the Alameda Unified
School District (AUSD) requires that the City provide said report
on an annual basis.
President Appezzato stated that the annual report was intended to
alert the public that the matter was an item to be resolved over
Regular Meeting, Alameda City Council
December 19, 1995
400
the next 20 years or, hopefully, sooner; and that the matter will
appear on the agenda at least once annually.
Neil Patrick Sweeney, Alameda, suggested that available acreage at
the Alameda Naval Air Station (NAS) be transferred to AUSD in
exchange for the Mastick Senior Center.
President Appezzato stated that AUSD has requested a public benefit
conveyance of acreage and facilities at the NAS; and that Alameda
Reuse & Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) has endorsed said request.
Councilmember Lucas moved acceptance of the report [for the purpose
of forwarding it to the AUSD through the Office of the
Superintendent of Schools]. Councilman Arnerich seconded the
motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(95-756) Report from Public Works Director recommending
Authorization to Award 5-Year Contract for Attendant Lot Operations
in Municipal Lots A & C. Held over to January 2, 1996.
David Douglas, Douglas Parking, stated that he was informed by an
individual in the Public Works Department, Engineering, that
Allright Parking was going to be awarded the contract for parking
tenant services because they [Allright Parking] were offering more
money to lease the parking lots; that he wrote letters to
Councilmembers stating opposition to the award of contract to
Allright Parking; that according to the staff report, Allright
Parking is not the lowest bidder; and that Douglas Parking is the
lowest bidder, which is why Douglas Parking is protesting the award
of contract.
The Acting City Manager stated that language for the Notice To
Bidders and Request For Qualifications read, H...the responsible
bidder who submits the lowest and the best bid.'; that the decision
was not made on just the lowest bid, rather the lowest and best;
recommended that a staff response be provided by the Public Works
Director; that Alternate 3 be selected; that the protest be
overruled; and that the contract be awarded to Allright Parking.
The Public Works Director explained the City's position.
Discussion was held regarding evaluation of bids, potential of
increased revenue, innovative ideas, and customer satisfaction
surveys.
Ken Moffett, Allright Parking, Inc., addressed aspects of Allright
Parking's [bid] proposal.
Regular Meeting, Alameda City Council
December 19, 1995
401
In response to Councilman Arnerich's inquiries, the Public Works
Director explained expected profits, and revenues based upon the
number of parked vehicles, including length of time parked in said
lots.
Councilman Arnerich suggested that if the parking lots do not make
it on the expenses submitted, that the operator should either cut
back on expenses or work with the City to reduce the hours [of
operation].
In response to Councilmember Lucas' inquiry, the Public Works
Director explained contract termination provisions.
Councilmember Lucas requested that a provision be added to the
contract regarding termination for the lack of revenue.
Councilman Arnerich stated that he would like the City to receive
a minimum 10% return on its money, or $8,000.
The City Attorney stated that if Council would like to add such a
provision to the contract, Allright Parking would have to agree.
Mr. Moffett, Allright Parking, agreed to the provision regarding
termination [of contract] for the lack of revenue.
President Appezzato stated that the matter should [be held over
and] come back to the City Council.
The Public Works Director explained the alternates; and stated that
Alternate 3 could earn approximately $26,000 per year for the City.
Councilmember DeWitt stated that he supports Alternate 3, and
awarding the contract to Allright Parking.
President Appezzato stated that he supports Alternate 3, and
awarding the contract to Douglas Parking.
Councilmember Lucas stated that Council did not receive a copy of
the proposed contract in the summary for Alternate 3; that there
were some potential reductions of revenues to the City; and that
she would like to see a copy of the contract.
Councilman Arnerich restated that he would like a minimum cap on
the City's return [on its money].
Councilmember Lucas moved that the matter be held over to another
Council meeting, and requested that Council receive copies of the
contract with proposed inclusion [that the City receive a minimum.
10% on its money, and that a provision be added to the contract
regarding termination for lack of revenues].
Regular Meeting, Alameda City Council
December 19, 1995
402
Vice Mayor Mannix seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor Mannix stated that the staff report
could be laid out more clearly; that he was prepared, based upon
past practices, to award the contract to Douglas Parking; and that
he would refrain from making a decision until staff reports back to
Council.
The motion [that the matter be held over to another Council
meeting] carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(95-757) Resolution No. 12721 "Approving Parcel Map No. 6629
(1234-1238 College Avenue and 2828 Encinal Avenue) and Granting an
Exception from Section 30-84.7 of the Municipal Code Requiring
Undergrounding of Utilities." Adopted.
Earl Peacock, Alameda, questioned the purpose of granting an
exception from Section 30-84.7.
The Acting City Manager explained the purpose; and stated that it
was an existing overhead area and that it would be unreasonable to
require one parcel to underground its utilities when everything in
the neighborhood is above ground.
The Public Works Director stated that the 10,500-square-foot lot
was already developed with four houses; and that the lot would be
subdivided in order to be sold at a reasonable price for home
ownership.
In response to President Appezzato's inquiry, the Public Works
Director stated that the area would be undergrounded when its
district was undergrounded.
Vice Mayor Mannix moved adoption of the Resolution. Councilmember
Lucas seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous vote - 5.
(95-758) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda
Municipal Code by Repealing Section 2-63 (Lost, Stolen, and
Unclaimed Property) of Article V (Administrative Procedures and
Policies) of Chapter II (Administration) in its Entirety and
Replacing with Revised Section 2-63 (Lost, Stolen and Unclaimed
Property), of Article V (Administrative Procedures and Policies) of
Chapter II (Administration). Introduced.
Vice Mayor Mannix expressed concern that the policy could mean
seizing personal property arbitrarily because of a drug-related
suspicion, thus contravening some existing laws.
Regular Meeting, Alameda City Council
December 19, 1995
40 3
The Chief of Police gave an overview of the report, and clarified
that the proposed amendment would allow the City to advertise in
the local newspaper that it is anticipating transferring unclaimed
funds to the General Fund.
Vice Mayor Mannix moved introduction of the Ordinance. Councilman
Arnerich seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote
- 5.
(95-759) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda
Municipal Code by Amending Subsections 5-24.2, 5-24.3, 5-24.4, 5-
24.8d, 5-24.16 and 5-24.21 of Section 5-24 (Bingo Games for
Charity) of Chapter V, (Licenses and Permits), Thereof, Regulating
Bingo Games for Charity. Introduced.
Bill McCall, former Alameda Mayor, inquired whether the proposed
amendment would affect bingo games at Mastick Senior Center.
The Acting City Manager stated that the proposed amendment would
bring the local ordinance into conformity with State law; that it
deletes the requirement that a bingo operator conduct business in
town for one year [prior to application]; and that said amendment
could create competition.
In response to Councilmember Lucas' inquiry, the City Attorney
stated that the City is obligated to follow State law and preempts
the City's Municipal Code; that the Municipal Code is currently
inconsistent; and that whether the City adopts the changes or not,
the City is required to follow Penal Code Section 326.5.
In response to Councilman Arnerich's inquiry, the City Attorney
stated that according to Penal Code Section 326.5, Subsection N:
"The total value of prizes awarded during conduct of any bingo game
shall not exceed $250 in cash, or kind, or both, for each separate
game which is held."
Vice Mayor Mannix moved introduction of the Ordinance.
Councilmember DeWitt seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(95-760) Bills for ratification.
Don Roberts, Alameda, stated that the Alameda Journal is the
official newspaper for legal notices in the City of Alameda; that
the check register for the month of December reflected that the
Alameda Times Star was paid $1,259.10 for promotion and
advertising; and questioned why advertising [monies] was given to
the Alameda Times Star.
Regular Meeting, Alameda City Council
December 19, 1995
404
The Finance Director stated that she would look into the matter and
provide information regarding said matter to the Council, and also
to Mr. Roberts, before the next Council meeting.
Councilmember DeWitt moved ratification of the bills, certified by
the City Manager to be true and correct, in the sum of
$1,536,140.55. Councilmember Lucas seconded the motion, which
carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
President Appezzato reviewed the process for Council when calling
for the question according to the Alameda City Charter and Roberts
Rules of Order; stated that the Mayor shall preside at all meetings
of the Council; that when the Chair [Mayor] thinks that all debate
is closed, the Chair [Mayor] inquires if Council is ready for the
question and calls for the vote; and that he will continue as
Mayor, to allow all those who wish to debate and speak, to do so
before he calls for the question.
5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
President Appezzato announced that Items 5-A and 5-B would be heard
together.
(95-761) Resolution No. 12722 "Calling a Special Election in
the City of Alameda for the Purpose of Submitting to the Electors
an Ordinance Entitled "Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by
Amending Subsection 26-1.1 Thereof Relating to the Use of
Assessment District Proceedings for Construction and Improvement of
Buildings for Library and Carnegie Building Rehabilitation and
Reuse Purposes"; Fixing the Date of Said Election, the Manner of
Holding Same, and Providing for Notice Thereof; Consolidating Said
Special Election with the Primary Election of the State of
California to be Held on Tuesday, March 26, 1996; and Proposing
Said Ordinance." (Carried over from the December 5, 1995, Regular
Council Meeting.); and Report from Assistant City Manager
responding to issues raised regarding the New Library and Carnegie
Rehabilitation and Museum Project Assessment District; transmitting
revised Preliminary Engineer's Report; and recommending adoption of
two Resolutions.
[See Paragraph (95-762), for discussion and Council action.]
(95-762) Resolution No. 12723 "Declaring the Intention of the
City Council to Form an Assessment District to Fund Construction of
a New Main Library Building on the LinOaks Site and to Rehabilitate
and Seismically Upgrade the Carnegie Building for Use as a Museum
Regular Meeting, Alameda City Council
December 19, 1995
40J
or Other Public Purpose if the Voters of the City Approve the
Measure to Amend Subsection 26-1.1 of the Alameda Municipal Code."
(Carried over from the December 5, 1995, Regular Council Meeting.)
The Acting City Manager gave a brief overview of the Resolutions
and previously expressed concerns; he stated that the revised
Preliminary Engineer's Report dated December 14, 1995, proposes
that duplexes, triplexes, and four-plexes have their Equivalent
Dwelling Units (EDUs) reduced from 1.0 to .75 per dwelling unit,
which represents a 25% reduction; that the affect of said
reduction, however, increases the assessments for single family
residents; that in order to keep the $68.50 assessment for single
family residents, while at the same time granting the 25% reduction
for duplexes, triplexes and four-plexes, staff proposes extending
the bond from 25 years to 30 years; and that the main issue to be
addressed is to set the maximum rate at $68.50 and to refer the
matter to the voters.
Jeff Cooper, Senior Vice President, Berryman & Henigar, stated that
he is in charge of a division that specializes in special
assessments for public agencies; that based upon comments received
at the last Council meeting, he further reviewed and looked at
number of benefit assessment districts in the State of California
for libraries; that only about four or five assessments have been
done for libraries; that the library assessments were based upon
units, similar to the proposed methodology for the City; that he
has not seen any assessments for libraries based upon floor area or
the number of rooms; that assessment districts for libraries in
Northern California include the City of San Jose, the County of
Santa Clara, and El Dorado County, and were based upon units; that
all three district proposals were submitted to the voters and
received a simple majority approval; that said districts have been
established and were currently funding libraries; that he,
personally, believes strongly that the number of rooms or floor
area is not directly related to library benefit; that he has done
assessment districts where he has included floor area, but
assessments have been for different types of benefits, e.g. fire
suppression assessment, where floor area or size of the unit is
related to fire benefit; that benefit assessment is not based upon
value or an ad valorem; and that he is not aware of any
[assessments for libraries] that are done in the State that are
based upon the number of rooms or the floor area of a unit.
President Appezzato stated that if the Resolutions are adopted, the
Council and community will get behind the assessment district; that
it was imperative that positive publicity gets equal publication
with the negative; that the benefit of the library far exceeds some
of what may be perceived as less beneficial to a small few; and
that he hopes Mr. Cooper's comments gain wide publication so that
the citizens can be well informed.
Regular Meding, Al= Ma City Council
December 19, 1995
Don Roberts, Alameda, commented on the definition of single family
homes; and questioned the benefits of condominium studio apartment
which would have to pay $68.50 vs. a rental studio apartment which
would have to pay $51.38.
In response to Mr. Roberts' inquiry, Mr. Cooper stated that an
apartment that has been converted to a condominium in a typical
community is the exception and not the rule; that the approach has
been that the average condominium is more like a single family home
than it is an apartment; that the precise size of each individual
condominium or apartment is not used in the [Berryman & Henigar]
analysis; that if the Assessor's Office has classified a
condominium [as such], then [Berryman & Henigar] assessed [same] as
a condominium; that [Berryman & Henigar's] analysis does not have
data that shows that one is smaller than the other; that whether it
has been transferred from an apartment to a condominium, [Berryman
& Henigar] does not have that kind of information; that the most-
recent Assessor's Roll would be used to determine assessment per
classification; and whether a unit is rented or not, will not
affect the assessment amount.
Mr. Roberts stated that the assessment approach is an inequitable
way of paying for the library and museum; and commented on
equitable options under Proposition 13.
In response to Councilman Arnerich's inquiry, Mr. Cooper stated
that depending upon the size and use of a parcel, commercial
buildings could be assessed at a higher rate.
Don Cartwright, Alameda, expressed concerns regarding the concept;
and inquired as to the number of Alameda residents who have library
cards, the number of books checked out, the amount of usage of the
library, and whether the City needs a new [library] facility.
President Appezzato requested that the Acting City Manager request
the Library Director to respond to Mr. Cartwright's inquiries; and
stated that the voters will decide if the library matter succeeds
or fails, and not the City Council.
Barbara Kerr, Alameda, expressed concerns regarding the disparity
between the taxes on residential rental property and other kinds of
businesses.
Neil Patrick Sweeney, Alameda, suggested that voluntary financial
planning programs be created to teach residents how to come up with
the money to pay for assessments, e.g. accelerated mortgage
payments, pre-pay on credit cards.
Mabel Wong, Alameda, commented on long-term apartment vacancies at
1508 Union Street; and inquired why assessments have to be paid for
vacant units.
Regular Meeting, Alameda City Council
December 19, 1995
407
Doris Chow, Alameda, stated that commercial buildings will pay less
[than residential owners]; stated that the assessment was not fair;
requested an explanation regarding the discrimination in amounts;
and inquired if the City could request a portion of funds
designated annually by the Library Commission.
Mr. Cooper clarified that the rate is still $68.50; that the
commercial properties are charged 8.7 EDUs per acre; and that a
benefit factor was applied because of belief and experience that
business benefits from libraries are not equal to single family
home [benefits].
Bill McCall, former Alameda Mayor, spoke in opposition to
assessment; and urged consideration of a bond issue.
Dave Plummer, Alameda, stated that the assessment distribution is
unfair.
Councilmember DeWitt moved adoption of the Resolutions [Resolution
calling for the election on March 26, 1996; and Resolution
declaring the intention to form an assessment district to fund the
improvements].
Vice Mayor Mannix seconded the motion.
Councilmember Lucas confirmed that the recommended wording on the
ballot is H...for use as a museum and cultural purposes..."
Bob Able, Alameda, spoke in opposition to proposed assessment and
a new library, due to tough economic times; and suggested that the
matter be held until the economy improves.
Councilman Arnerich requested that the words "...up to $68.50..."
be replaced with "...shall not exceed $68.50..." in the Resolution
Calling a Special Election.
The motion to adopt Resolutions [Resolution calling for the
election on March 26, 1996, as amended; and Resolution declaring
the intention to form an assessment district to fund the
improvements] carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
Council recessed at 9:25 p.m. and reconvened at 9:39 p.m
Discussion resumed on Items 5-A and 5-B.
Councilmember DeWitt moved acceptance of the report and
recommendations; that the Mayor be designated to sign the ballot
measure; that the preparation of the City Attorney's Impartial
Analysis be approved for submittal to the Registrar of Voters; and
Regular Mooting, Alameda City Council
December 19, 1995
408
that the revised Preliminary Engineer's Report dated December 14,
1995, which includes the revised methodology, be accepted for
filing.
Vice Mayor Mannix seconded the motion.
Councilmember Lucas concurred that the Mayor should be designated
as the City official to sign the ballot measure argument; that she
is not sure she is going to personally support the argument; and
that she wants to reserve the right to support the opposition
argument.
The motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(95-763) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal by Joseph Wood,
on behalf of Edward Murphy, of the Planning Board's decision to
uphold the Planning Director's determination that this submittal
for demolition of two structures and construction of a triplex is
substantially identical to a 1986 proposal of a triplex on this
parcel and that no new decision would be made on this proposal.
The Planning Director in 1986 determined that a triplex could not
be permitted. Applicant/Appellant: Joseph Wood on behalf of Edward
Murphy; and Resolution No. 12724 "Upholding the Planning Board's
Decision that the Proposal for a Triplex at 2615/2617 Santa Clara
Avenue is Substantially Identical to a 1986 Proposal for a Triplex
on This Parcel and That No New Decision will be Made on This
Proposal."
Joseph Wood, Attorney representing Edward Murphy,
Applicant/Appellant, stated that the Planning Director refused to
process Mr. Murphy's application because the application was
similar to the one Mr. Murphy previously submitted and was denied
eight or ten years ago; that he believes the denial was because Mr.
Murphy challenged, in court, the applicability and enforceability
of Measure A; that the City is retaliating; that this matter should
be pursued in the courts to decide the criteria for Measure A; and
that the City should process the application and avoid a civil
lawsuit regarding rights.
The City Attorney stated that the City's position was that Measure
A was constitutional and valid; that it had been in effect for
twenty-two years; that the request before Council was to review the
Planning Board's decision, and she recommends Council support the
Board's decision that the application was substantially identical
to the 1986 application.
In response to Councilmember Lucas, the Planning Director stated
Mr. Murphy had not been treated differently from other applicants,
other City properties, and noted she consults with the City
Attorney on matters concerning Measure A.
Regular Meeting, Alameda City Council
December 19, 1995
409
Councilman Arnerich stated this matter was very complicated, and he
would rely on the advice of the City Attorney.
Vice Mayor Mannix stated that he believed the real issue was
whether the application was the same filed in 1986, and it appeared
to him that it was; and moved the recommendation [to uphold the
Planning Board's decision by adopting the Resolution).
Councilmember Lucas seconded the motion.
President Appezzato stated he would support the motion because he
believed the comments of the Planning Director, as endorsed by the
Planning Board and by the City Attorney.
Councilman Arnerich requested that the Planning Director determine
whether there have been any similar applications since 1986.
The Planning Director stated she is not aware of any since the
adoption of the remodeling ordinance in about 1985.
President Appezzato requested she confirm that information.
The motion to adopt the Resolution carried by unanimous voice vote
- 5.
(95-764) Public Hearing to consider Final Passage of Ordinance
No. 2714 "Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Chapter
XIII (Building and Housing), Article I (Building Regulations),
Article II (Electrical Regulations), and Article III (Plumbing
Regulations) to Adopt the 1994 Edition of the Uniform Building
Code, the 1994 Edition of the Uniform Code for Building
Conservation, the 1993 Edition of the National Electric Code, the
1994 Edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, the 1994 Edition of the
Uniform Mechanical Code and Approving Certain Amendments Thereto;
by Amending Chapter XV (Fire Prevention) to Adopt the 1994 Edition
of the Uniform Fire Code and Approving Certain Amendments Thereto;
by Renumbering the Alameda Housing Code; and by Making Certain
Conforming Amendments Throughout the Alameda Municipal Code."
Councilmember DeWitt moved adoption of the Ordinance. Vice Mayor
Mannix seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
(95-765) Public Hearing to Consider Increase of Building
Permit Fees in Conjunction with the Adoption of the 1994 Uniform
Codes and a Resolution No. 12725 "Amending Master Fee Resolution
No. 12191 by Establishing Building, Excavation and Grading Permit
Fees and By Establishing an Annual Boarded Building and Vacant
Parcel Monitoring Fee."
Councilmember DeWitt moved adoption of the Resolution.
Regular Meeting, Alameda City Council
December 19, 1995
4 0
Councilmember Lucas seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
(95-767) Public Hearing to consider Resolution No. 12726
"Establishing Underground Utility Districts #21 through #28 at
Various Locations in the City of Alameda."
Irene Hanson, Sacramento, expressed concerns regarding underground
utility districts, including costs to property owners for
undergrounding; and stated that the matter was not voted on by
citizens.
President Appezzato gave a brief overview of the matter; stated
reasons for undergrounding; and commented on damage to above ground
utilities due to recent storms.
Councilmember DeWitt stated that there was basic information Ms.
Hanson and citizens should be provided on the matter.
Councilmember Lucas discussed real estate values as they relate to
undergrounding.
Councilman Arnerich stated that there should be no delay in
providing information to citizens; requested that Ms. Hanson
provide names of staff and dates of requests for information; and
noted that the Bureau of Electricity's costs for undergrounding
would be over $3,000,000 and the cost to the City would be $154,000
for the eight projects listed.
Earl Peacock, Grassroots Committee for Fair Taxation, Alameda,
stated that the undergrounding idea was excellent; and suggested
that the Bureau be requested to set up [program] to evaluate
citizens who have financial hardships.
President Appezzato stated regarding residential units, that the
owner has the option of doing [work] themselves, hiring someone, or
if the Bureau does it, the maximum cost charged by the Bureau will
be $1200; and it could be much less if done by the individual.
Bill McCall, Sr., former Mayor, Alameda, stated that he liked the
way the Bureau operated, and it contributed a great deal of money
to the City; that during the recent storm, Alameda was relatively
without trouble compared to other cities; however, he believed the
proposed assessment for the library was enough to consider at this
time.
In response to President Appezzato's inquiry, Mr. McCall stated
that undergrounding must be done, but care must be taken when
moving into areas so that it will not affect the wrong people.
Regular Meeting, Alameda City Council
December 19, 1995
411
Hrayr Terzian, Alameda, questioned whether a multiple unit could
have a maximum cost; and, since undergrounding benefits all
Alamedans, why costs are not paid from General Fund [monies].
President Appezzato explained that all the people will pay, and
citizens in prior years have paid to have their utilities
undergrounded.
Christopher Buckley, Alameda, urged adoption of the Resolutions;
noted benefits of undergrounding; stated that the average cost for
[undergrounding] a single family house is $750; and suggested
payment options for hardship cases, e.g., deferred loans.
David Baker, Alameda, urged support of the Resolution.
The Public Works Director explained the property owners'
responsibility; stated that the utility companies are fully
responsible for the undergrounding of their facilities when a
district is established; that the property owner is responsible for
the connection from the facility at the sidewalk to the house, e.g.
trenching and meters; noted that time-payment plans and liens could
be utilized; and stated that the project is long-term.
President Appezzato stated that there must be a means of educating
the public on this matter; and that every property owner must be
contacted.
The Public Works Director stated that a letter was sent to every
property owner in all the districts, and that some response had
been received.
Councilman Arnerich stressed the importance of education and
reports reflecting exact figures.
Cliff Hubbard, Bureau of Electricity, stated that undergrounding
was being paid by everyone whether they were in an underground or
above ground area, and that two percent from electric bills were
currently being set aside to pay for said undergrounding; that he
and the Bureau Manager discussed the matter and concluded that the
Bureau must be more proactive; and that the Bureau should contact
citizens through "neighborhood firesides" to inform and assist
citizens through the process in an effort find a reputable
contractor and keep costs down.
President Appezzato stated he liked Mr. Hubbard's idea.
In response to Councilmember Lucas' inquiry, Mr. Hubbard stated
that he would have to confirm figures but estimated the highest
cost to a rental property owner thus far was approximately $2,000
to $2,500, or possibly up to $3,000.
Regular Meeting, Alameda City Council
December 19, 1995
412
In response to Vice Mayor Mannix's inquiry, Mr. Hubbard stated that
the $1,200 cost to citizens probably has to be paid because it was
copied after the PG&E pattern, which has what is called Rule 28;
that in the PG&E area, homeowners pay that value upon changeover;
that he believes PG&E thought it was just an equitable situation;
and that Council determines how said funds are to be spent.
Councilman Arnerich discussed possibility of bypassing lengthy
trenching in order to cut costs, and Mr. Hubbard stated he would
further investigate the matter.
Gerhard Degemann, Alameda, commented on drilling techniques.
Councilmember Lucas stated that she proposed undergrounding in
1984; that she believes property values will increase when
undergrounded; that the property owners in the eight districts are
fortunate to be included; and moved approval of the staff
recommendation.
Councilman Arnerich seconded the motion, and stated that
undergrounding should continue.
Councilmember DeWitt stated that he was not sure he should support
matter; however, the list was narrowed down to eight districts, and
areas chosen would not be a hardship for many people.
President Appezzato stated that he liked the Bureau of
Electricity's comments; that the City needs to be sure every family
and commercial establishment knows what is being done and the cost;
and that the public should be educated on the matter.
Councilmember DeWitt stated that the next list before Council
should include the property owners' costs; and requested a deferred
payment plan for residents and property owners with hardships.
Vice Mayor Mannix stated that he believes undergrounding is
important but has a problem with taxpayers paying for it; and that
staff should report back to Council on defraying homeowners'
costs.
President Appezzato stated that one option could be that the City
do what it can with the two percent [utility tax], however, was
uncertain whether that would be acceptable.
The motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Arnerich, DeWitt, Lucas, and President Appezzato -
4. Noes: Vice Mayor Mannix - 1. Absent: None.
(95-768) Report from Community Development Director regarding .
Designating West Alameda Target Area.
Regular Mer-ting, Alameda City Council
December 19, 1995
15
413
The Community Development Director gave an overview of the
[Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)] Consolidated Plan;
stated that the target area was related to the revitalization of
Webster Street and the residential neighborhoods of west Alameda;
that it provides an opportunity to work with merchants and
residents to reestablish a sense of neighborhood; and that
strengthening the economic, physical and social conditions on and
around Webster Street would help the area confront base closure and
become an incubator for jobs, services and commodities, housing
opportunities and community involvement.
In response to Councilmember Lucas' inquiry regarding potential for
additional high-density, low-income housing in the targeted area,
the Community Development Director stated that the effected persons
would be surveyed to determine what they would like to have done in
their neighborhood; that various methods would be used to
communicate survey results, e.g. newsletters, fire-side chats; and
that the needs and priorities identified by the residents would be
respected.
Councilmember Lucas stated that she would like to be regularly
informed regarding matters pertaining to her neighborhood.
The Community Development Director stated that bi-monthly reports
would be provided beginning next fiscal year.
In response to President Appezzato, the Community Development
Director stated that information concerning time frame and costs
would be provided to Council.
Councilman Arnerich stated that a simple flyer should be provided
to each resident and place of business in the area.
Councilmember DeWitt moved acceptance of the report and
recommendation [that Council designate depicted area as the West
Alameda Target Area and authorize staff to proceed with survey and
programming activities in the area]. Vice Mayor Mannix seconded
the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment)
(95-769) Leah Hess, Attorney for the California Apartments
Tenants' Association, discussed certain existing conditions at the
apartment complex, including deferred maintenance; and a recent
letter/petition to the City requesting assistance.
Following discussion, President Appezzato stated that the City
Council received information at the 7:15 p.m. staff [information]
meeting, which was open to the public; that staff was directed to
respond back to the Council regarding the entire issue, including
what the City has already done, and what it intends to do; and that
Regular Mecting, Alma's City Council
December 19, 1995
41 4
he is sure the City Attorney would respond to Ms. Hess.
(95-770) Neil Patrick Sweeney, Alameda, announced that a Base
Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) Town Meeting would be held on January
11, 1996; and stated that the City should support the effort to get
more fans to the Coliseum Stadium.
(95-771) Andrew McCormack, owner of the Webster House,
Alameda, discussed his renovation project; he stated that the
Planning Director told him he was operating an illegal business,
however, the City has not started legal procedures yet; and that he
is tired of being harassed and would like the Planning Director to
start the procedures.
President Appezzato requested that the Acting City Manager prepare
a response, item by item, to every concern.
(95-772) Susan McCormack, owner of the Webster House, Alameda,
requested a fee waiver if a Variance was required; that waiver
request would be based on [financial] hardship; she stated that the
Planning Director informed Mr. McCormack and her that nothing had
been resolved regarding the various issues, e.g. parking and legal
food service; and that the project depends upon the deck covering.
President Appezzato requested a complete report on each item.
(95-773) Gerhard Degemann, Alameda, suggested that a progress
report be prepared emphasizing accomplishments made by the City
Council during 1995; he stated that a progress report should be
prepared and made available to citizens on an annual basis; that
the progress report should be included in the Bureau's Utility
Bills or published in the local newspapers; he commented on
problems that could occur from sand pumping on the north side and
South Shore, e.g. odor and erosion; stated that he understood the
sand pumping is either proposed for a new airport runway or golf
course; suggested that the City look into the matter; stated that
he did not realize that people who have paid for undergrounding [of
utilities] have to continue paying the 2% Utility Tax; and inquired
how much money has been accumulated from the 2% Utility Tax.
President Appezzato responded that the 2% [Utility Tax] was to pay
for all of the utilities' costs, excluding from the street to the
home, and not for the connection.
7. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (Communications from Council)
(95-774) Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment
to the Planning Board.
President Appezzato nominated Carol Gottstein, D.D.S., M.D., for
appointment to the Planning Board.
Regular Meeting, Alameda City Council
December 19, 1995
415
_ (95-775) Vice Mayor Mannix requested that staff report back on
the viability of a community-based government process.
8. ADJOURNMENT
(95-776) President Appezzato adjourned the meeting at 11:49
Rgspectfully submitted,
D B.ILSCH,
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in advance in accordance
with the Brown Act.
p In •
Regular Meeting, Alameda City Council
December 19, 1995